Dare to Know

Yikes, it's not just Lincolnshire apparently...

2011-07-23T05:28:00.000+01:00

...this scary document is being used by at least ten other authorities. Gill has the details.

Shame on Lincolnshire LA and worries re Localism Bill

2011-07-22T12:05:00.000+01:00

...beautifully explained by Lisa.

Documentaries - Free Online

2011-06-16T07:00:00.002+01:00

Huge list, available here.

Angelina on Home Schooling

2011-06-04T06:47:00.002+01:00

...here

Free Learning Resource

2011-05-29T05:24:00.000+01:00

...from Wales and Learn Premium.

Universities on Line

2011-05-23T07:24:00.005+01:00

...here, so why not schools?

A collaborative Links Page

2011-05-21T06:23:00.002+01:00

...for Home Educators here.

Funding for College Places for 14 - 16 year olds and for SEN.

2011-05-20T04:52:00.002+01:00

Fiona explains all here, including why an HEK might want a college place.

What teachers really think of the children in their care

2011-05-18T15:06:00.001+01:00

...ooh nice!

It IS all about the child

2011-05-12T05:52:00.000+01:00

This columnist is clear why educational freedom is so important - it is by far the easiest way to meet the needs of the individual child.

Hansard Transcript, Wednesday 11th May 2011

2011-05-12T04:46:00.000+01:00

...from yesterday's House of Parliament debate on the new Education Bill, with sterling work by Graham Stuart and later here, where Nick Gibb says:

"Finally, let me turn to new clause 22, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education. I fully understand his concerns about the proposed change to the pupil registration regulations that apply when parents choose to remove their children from school to home educate them. My hon. Friend now knows that we shall not proceed with the change in its present form, and I hope that I can further reassure him by explaining the thinking that led us to propose the regulation change in the first place, and what we intend to do now. As he said, the change would have required schools to retain pupils on the roll for 20 school days following a parent’s decision to remove their child from school for home education. If the parents change their minds, the child could be re-admitted to the school. I was attracted by that proposition, as was my hon. Friend.

The Government’s policy remains that parents are responsible for their children’s education. They have the right to choose to fulfil that responsibility by educating their children themselves, rather than by sending them to school, and we have no desire to interfere with that right. The proposed change in the regulations was intended to protect any children whose parents had reluctantly decided to home educate against their own better judgment—for example, those who would rather their child went to school, but who have concerns about the school that they feel it has not addressed. That group is not typical of the majority of home educators, who in my experience are determined, committed and passionate people. Having considered the issue further and taken into account the views of home educators and those of my hon. Friend, I am not yet convinced that the proposed change is the best way to address the concern. Therefore, we are considering other policy options. However, I am grateful to the Chairman of the Education Committee for tabling new clause 22, which has enabled me to put that on the record."

Confirmation from Graham Stuart MP

2011-05-11T15:42:00.000+01:00

....(Chair of the Education Select Committee), that the 20 day ruling has been rejected! Yay.

HEK on Britain's Got Talent

2011-05-10T20:59:00.004+01:00

here.

Update on the 20 day delay

2011-05-05T12:42:00.000+01:00

Good news on the proposed 20 day delay, from the Behaviour and Attendance in Schools Division of the DofE.

"Thank you for your email to the Secretary of State dated 29 March about the proposed change to the Pupil Registration Regulations regarding parents choosing to remove their children from school to home educate. The Secretary of State has asked me to respond.

I would like to reassure you that it is not the Department's intention to change the rights of parents to home educate their children if they wish to do so. Similarly, it is not our intention that any change to regulations should be used to put pressure on parents to return their child to school against their wishes.

The proposed change to the regulations was intended to protect those children whose parents have been unfairly encouraged into home education against their better judgement, particularly those pupils with behavioural or learning difficulties who might present a challenge to the school.

Having considered the issue further, however, Ministers are not yet convinced that the proposed change is the best way to address this concern and have asked officials to explore other policy options.

You also expressed concern over the lack of consultation in considering the Regulation change. I should explain that we were originally aiming to bring the change into effect for the start of the new school year in September 2011 as we believed that, along with the other changes, it would benefit both parents and schools. It is for this reason that the consultation was targeted at key representative bodies, and unfortunately it was not possible to include individual schools, local councils or home educators in the time available.

I hope this reply addresses your concerns."

And more on the 20 day delay in de-registration

2011-04-25T07:11:00.000+01:00

A response from Neil T to Nick Gibb's letter.

If you haven't yet seen NG's letter, it can be found in comments here.

Radio 4 - Home educated girls less angst-ridden?

2011-04-21T08:06:00.002+01:00

Can be heard again here.

More on the 20 day delay in de-registration

2011-04-20T23:44:00.016+01:00

You gotta give 'em credit! It seems civil servants at the Dpt.of Ed. have gone into full job protection mode, having sought out that tinsy little bit of the Badman Report that might be hard to argue against, and are trying right now, under our noses, to sneak it through, in order to keep themselves and others like them busy, and just when we might have taken our eyes of Balls.

Yep, home educators are compelled once again to get a collective grip, and are setting about explaining why even this seemingly innocuous proposal is (yet another) VERY BAD IDEA.

The 20 day delay in de-registration looks innocuous. After all, a parent can remove the traumatised child, settle him/her safely outside the school grounds, start the de-schooling process, breath a sigh of relief - what does it really matter that the child is still on the books?

Well according to the Dpt., those 20 days are meant to be some sort of cooling of/resolution-finding period, a moment for all to reflect and find ways to solve the problems that led to the de-registration.

Let's take this idea seriously for a second. Can it work? Well possibly, in which case I guess the option to return to school would be helpful. However, it seems more likely that families will either have already become so whacked by the failure to resolve problems with the school, that 20 days won't make a jot of difference, or that de-registration really is whimsical, but actually that's just fine because home education is, for many, a perfectly viable option that can be taken apparently on the spur of the moment.

By way of an example of this last point, I de-registered DD after a successful term at school, a day before the next term recommenced. I had no idea she didn't want to go back to school until that very day, though it later transpired that she had been weighing the alternatives almost all summer hols. One of the great things about de-regging her on demand was that she knew that once that letter was sent, it was done and dusted. Only much later, from the safety of certain de-registration, did this child who had apparently coped so well with her schooling experience, deconstruct it sufficiently to see how crap it really was: the children were competitive bullies, she was seen as strange for bothering to pay attention, and yes, I remember this bit: I was told off (gently, I admit) by her class teacher for pushing her too hard! That was one of those admittedly annoyingly frequent moments when I didn't have a come-back as the accusation was so ridiculous. I should have said "Err what? She has freely chosen to spend time here. I've had nothing to do with it and certainly don't make her do ANYTHING."

Anyhow, HEing has continued apace very equitably ever since, despite the 3 second thought process that the choice apparently involved.

And herein lies one of the problems with the 20 day delay. It suggests that HE is NOT equivalent to the schooling process. It allows for the subtle undermining of the notion that huge numbers of parents, armed with google, are perfectly up to the job nowadays and perpetuates the myth that teachers and all the attendant flummery and civil servants are essentials in all our lives.

But of course the bods at the D. of E. don't care about this. This is not an argument we can use as this is at least part of their unspoken intention. In the past, with whole swathes of the Badman recommendations, we got the bods at what was then the Department for Children, Schools and Families to listen to us by explaining how buggering up s7 would NOT BE A GOOD IDEA for anyone, particularly for the bods at the Department for Children, Schools and Families who would have to put up with loads of irate Local Authorities complaining to them about rendering the state responsible for ensuring that children receive an education that is suited to their age, ability and aptitude. But the 20 day delay doesn't quite do this. I mean, the parent can after all, still take the child out of the school, and can dictate the place of education, and can be entirely responsible for ensuring that they receive a suitable one, so S7 on the fact of it, looks untouched by this change in practice.

But there is a deeper problem with the 20 day delay. Whilst S7 is superficially uncompromised, the deeper principle of parental responsibility IS deeply compromised. And we aren't just talking here about how the 20 day delay will be abused - as it almost certainly will be, since local authorities will (if only they had the money and the manpower) use the 20 day delay to come sniffing round the doors of all newly dereg families, nominally to ensure that they aren't off on some nice little jaunt to Ibiza with the full intention of returning to school in 20 days time, (the so-called Ibiza loophole), but also to make sure that whatever happens to be the LA officer's vision of a suitable education is taking place, all of which WILL compromise parental responsibility. But no, we aren't just talking about that. We are just talking about the 20 day removal of parental power.

As a wise old HE head said it, the 20 day delay:

"grants authorisation for absence, it does not cede control over the education to the parent, it merely makes a temporary concession....It removes that control from the parent, setting its own agenda, time scale and "permissions", which primary legislation makes no allowance for.

Further, he adds the caveat:

"If it can do that, and through a Statutory Instrument, which these days seem to be changed on a whim, then once the principle of suspending parental control and hanging onto registration is established, what is to stop the period of time being extended, potentially indefinitely, or the reasons for withholding deregistration extended or altered in potentially any way?

A registered pupil is under the control of the school, and I can see no reason why, once the principle which is at stake in this SI that that control may be maintained despite the clear request for deregistration for education 'otherwise', that control might not become of real concern, and seriously interfere with the practice of

parental choice.

It makes perfect sense if what you want to do is establish the principle of a parental responsibility override, to bring it in with trivial consequences that, assuming LAs behave properly, hoho, has no practical consequence to the parent who will commence HEing straight away, and this is what they are doing.

This is incremental loss, and we are being encouraged to see it as such a tiny increment as to make anyone seem pedantic and nit picking to query it at all. By implementing this incremental loss that doesn't seem to matter, or may be brushed aside as trivial in the way, this is precisely how we lose liberty in the long

term. It is the fabian way, which is the way of all gvts and it works, but it just has to adjust its speed and size of increments to what we will tolerate, that's all. It will not stop there. We should realise that this is the process we, our parents and their parents have been subjected to all of our and their lives, and be determined to accept no more increments, even if you need a micrometer to measure them with.

Not that this is that small an increment when you consider the sleight of hand attempt to undermine the *principle* of parental responsibility. It's more the opening of a door that currently the law has shut."

So caveat lector (most of them being home educators, let's face it!) We HAVE to get going again! Write to MPs, kick up a stink, tell them how annoying it already is when LAs abuse de-reg on demand, which plenty of them already do. Tell them that if they take over in any way, shape or form, we will come and get em, cos that does scare them.

From the First Recommendation

2011-04-20T22:42:00.000+01:00

...of the Badman Report:

"When parents are thinking of deregistering their child/children from school to home educate, schools should retain such pupils on roll for a period of 20 school days so that should there be a change in circumstances, the child could be readmitted to the school. This period would also allow for the resolution of such difficulties that may have prompted the decision to remove the child from school."

Ed Yourself

2011-04-07T12:11:00.000+01:00

Home education and legal advice, political news...everything here.

New proposal to delay deregistration by 20 days.

2011-03-29T20:50:00.002+01:00

Gill says it all.

News of yet another consultation

2011-03-23T05:13:00.000Z

...in the third from last paragraph here.

"The consultation document Hunt will launch next month will also set out three areas for discussion starting with how to foster innovation in areas such as games, telemedicine, home education and "micro-broadcasting" or local television."

Sigh.

Home Education and Funding

2011-03-04T17:18:00.000Z

Details of the current position here.

Yet more research in support of child-directed learning

2011-01-05T13:03:00.003Z

...this time from Psychology Today.

See here for more on same.

Free Audio and Video Downloads

2011-01-05T11:32:00.001Z

...listed here on Learn Out Loud.

More from Kelly

2010-12-31T06:13:00.003Z

...this time, on the significance of the struggle to home educate world-wide.

One conclusion:

"It is from a British base, I am convinced, that homelearning freedoms will be won back in Europe."

2010

2010-12-30T07:10:00.002Z

Things have been very quiet here but this is not for want of keeping an eye on things. Should there be a need - should the Department of Education suddenly find a spare pot of cash and decide they have nothing better to do with it than to hassle home educators, this place will fire up again.

In the meantime, Kelly has reviewed the most significant bits from 2010.

New Look HE UK

2010-11-20T13:40:00.000Z

HE UK updated and sparkly.

What most autonomous educators already know

2010-11-19T17:08:00.002Z

...that late reading isn't a disadvantage.

Ken's at it again!

2010-11-18T19:08:00.001Z

Lovely! And he will mention autonomous education soon, am quite sure of it.

First Australia, next the UK?

2010-11-16T04:00:00.001Z

Queensland dad says the state doesn't know best.

On-line Education

2010-11-12T06:31:00.002Z

...disrupting traditional models and not a moment too soon!

News from Lord Lucas

2010-11-10T02:41:00.001Z

...here.

Ken Robinson's 2010 TED talk

2010-10-21T07:30:00.000+01:00

...just in case you haven't seen it yet.

Still thinking about Autonomous Education!

2010-10-17T17:27:00.006+01:00

I need a motivational self-talk just now, and what better way to re-energise myself (other than some balmy runs in the country, and some lovely friends), than to think about the theories of AE! This set of theories means the most to me in the whole wide world. They are beautiful in the way that the writings of great physicists are. They makes sense. They hang together, they fit the data, and they work and at times like this, when I could be so sad, it is my greatest consolation.

Elsewhere, (guess where, folks!), my attention has been drawn to the problem of knowing just exactly when one is coercing one's child and when one isn't. I mean, this can actually be a difficult problem, I think.

Take a child whose parent has offered an over-arching theory which makes sense to the child, but which results in the child adopting plenty of self-coercive theories in order to fulfill the over-arching theory with which she agrees. The parent doesn't have to do the coercion as the child will be doing it for themselves, so to speak.

Of course, this isn't AE, if one takes the definition of AE to be that a person is enacting the theory that is active in the mind (as opposed to being forced, or in this case, forcing themselves) to enact a theory that is not active...ie: is coerced. Setting an over-arching plan for the child, and leaving the child to do the rest: this is not AE, but a slow absconding with the being of another person.

How can one prevent such a scenario one wonders? Well, am not sure that the following suggestions are 100% reliable, but the parent can't do much more than to stick to these principles:

(Please don't think am being horribly preachy just here. This is really for me, a reminder and a pep talk., so to myself, I say....)

I won't have an over-arching plan for the children in my life
I'll make sure the theories I offer really are tentative...if they are good, the children will grok this
I'll be prepared to change my preferences
I'll help the child solve his problems so that he isn't subject to subtle self-coercion along the way, even if it is to fulfill his grand plan. (Coercion is never useful).
And of course, we'll seek common preferences...we'll go wild, be creative, seek other solutions we never dreamt possible.

How to tell if this is panning out? If my children can happily tell you they have lost interest in something, (frick, do they do this!) then I do probably have it right!

The Essential Problem HEors have with LAs

2010-10-10T07:47:00.001+01:00

... is neatly encapsulated here.

Proposed new guidance?

2010-10-08T17:43:00.003+01:00

Everyone PLEASE NOTE: Gill has the answer to the conflicts that current education law presents.

Christian Homeschooling Org is meeting with the DCSF

2010-09-25T15:06:00.001+01:00

...on Wed 29th. Tech has the details.

Home Educators = Neanderthal parents...

2010-09-25T12:01:00.002+01:00

Well almost, insofar as many of them parent this way.

Also in the Mail and the Telegragh.

Home Education and Aspergers

2010-09-24T21:07:00.002+01:00

A totally credible article about the misery experienced by some children at school and the salvation that can be achieved through home education.

Capita are at it again

2010-09-22T06:16:00.001+01:00

...spreading misinformation that is. Maire has the details.

Home Educators and Socialisation

2010-09-12T06:34:00.001+01:00

Julia is staying measured and polite. I need this link!

India's Self-Taught Children

2010-09-08T21:10:00.001+01:00

Thanks Bishop for the link to Sugata Mitra's TED talk.

A Home Educated Heroine

2010-09-05T13:38:00.002+01:00

...in the prequel to Skellig, reviewed in the Guardian here.

Education Outside School Magazine

2010-09-04T06:56:00.000+01:00

Here.

Not Back to School Picnic

2010-09-03T21:14:00.001+01:00

...in Sheffield, reported upon here at 0.32.30 mins.

Oxford Home Schooling on Waterloo Road

2010-09-03T07:27:00.004+01:00

Suffice it to say that this is a fairly measured response to the caricatural and actually totally inaccurate portrayal of home education in this country, most comments being along the lines of "What utter drivel".

Lord Soley from Lords of the Blog

2010-09-01T11:05:00.002+01:00

...is at it again. Home educators provide cogent replies in comments, having actually read the Serious Case Review, and the judges summaries - unlike many others.

Emma Thompson Home Educates

2010-08-29T05:55:00.003+01:00

...at least for a year. Yay, but honestly, you'd have thought she was committing some terrible crime, the way the authorities have reacted.

And no, you don't have to convince the authorities that you will provide a suitable education when you deregister. You just have to hand in a letter.

Here's the deal: in law, parents are responsible for ensuring that their children receive a suitable education. The state only has to step in after the event, if it a suitable education isn't happening.

UPDATE: here's Kelly on the story.

Old news for many HEors

2010-08-28T12:38:00.004+01:00

...but now it's official: children should sleep with their parents till they're five.

Why autonomous education works

2010-08-21T07:09:00.005+01:00

Oh goodness me. I promised not to rise to this, but autonomous education is being so appallingly traduced in another arena, that it seemed irresponsible not to, and I have firmly promised myself that I will maintain some basic standards and ground-rules in the process.

It has been said (by a consistent and to date, impervious critic of autonomous education) that there is little evidence that it works. In fact, in comments, this critic goes further. He claims there is active evidence that it positively doesn't work and supports this claim by citing the article:

'Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching'

Having considerably less time than I used to have, I haven't read anything other than the synopsis of this article, but this alone is sufficient to ascertain that it is not a criticism of autonomous education. It is instead, a criticism of the neglectful form of education which, well, let's face it, does seem likely to fail.

However, autonomous education and neglect are not one and the same thing. Indeed autonomous educators frequently spend quite a lot of their time offering guidance. Guidance, in the form of the offer of tentatively held theories, is not precluded by the practice of autonomous education. What is precluded is coercion.

Coercion is defined by many UK HEors (and others who are concerned with the subject) as "being forced to enact a theory that is not active in the mind". Conversely, this simply means that autonomous education is learning with the theory active in the mind. This is the defining essence of autonomous education and means that it can happen in highly structured situations, where the individual is being taught in entirely pedagogical fashion, or when the learner is getting on with what he is doing entirely by himself.

Given this oft-repeated error about AE, (ie: the one about confusing AE with neglect), it is worth spelling it out all over again: an autonomous educator would be failing in their task if they were to fail to offer theories when a child wanted them.

As to the evidence that AE works? One group we used to attend was largely made up of much older autonomously educated children. I saw a lot of them again last week. Aside from the three who have gone to or are going to Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial, all the others are now either in some other university/college or work and all are happily doing what they want to do.

I personally don't feel the need to trawl for irrelevant scholarly articles on the internet to be certain that that autonomous education actually works.

Kelly's Book

2010-08-07T21:26:00.001+01:00

...a must have.

NSPCC abusive to children?

2010-08-07T06:40:00.001+01:00

Well yes, but then home educators knew this.

The "national scandal" of Children's Social Work

2010-08-04T11:48:00.003+01:00

...and news of the progress of the Munro report in CYPNow.

A Quick Mention

2010-08-01T13:46:00.001+01:00

David Friedman on "Anarchy and Efficient Law" touches upon the subject of HEing in California right at the beginning of this talk.

Michael Gove on Khyra Ishaq

2010-07-29T13:09:00.002+01:00

...at 11.34 hours on this Select Committee Recording.

From the Guardian

2010-07-28T21:56:00.002+01:00

Thank goodness some people are talking sense.

Alan Thomas and Harriet Pattison:

"Evidence including our own suggests strongly that this kind of education (home education) prepares children to enter further and higher education, or the workforce – and offers them the freedom to learn in the ways that suit them best. Yet there is a consistent failure on the part of local authorities and government reviews to grasp even the basis of the ideas that can underlie a different kind of education. Even the language of the serious case review demonstrates this failure of understanding. Small wonder that home-educating parents are afraid of conferring power on people who do not know what it is that they are judging."

Free Maths Sites

2010-07-25T04:53:00.003+01:00

Smart kiddie maths, KS2 and 3, free for a year here.

The Khan Academy videos, most levels of school maths, plus biology and history.

Maggie Atkinson under Review

2010-07-12T14:58:00.003+01:00

Here's an idea. Don't bother with a review. Just get rid of her. She never represented anyone else's views other than her own and these were frankly terrible: bullying, statist, interventionist.

Comments on Funding for Home Education

2010-07-06T21:14:00.000+01:00

...needed on this government website.

Statement on Funding

2010-06-21T19:18:00.002+01:00

...from the Department of Education.

Does that help? No. Thought not.

Press Release from Graham Stuart

2010-06-18T06:07:00.001+01:00

NEWS RELEASE
June 17th, 2010

Ofsted Home Education Report Seriously Flawed Says Graham Stuart MP

Graham Stuart MP, who last week was elected to take the Chair of the Commons Education Select Committee, today condemned Ofsted’s report on home education, “Local Authorities and Home Education” as “an unpleasant hangover of the last government: a manifesto for more state power at the expense of dedicated home educators and their children”.

Mr Stuart went on, “It is astonishing that the Chief Inspector of Schools should stray onto home education and get it so wrong. In Ofsted’s official press release she says that “it is extremely challenging for local authorities to meet their statutory duty to ensure children have a suitable education”, when they have no such duty. Parents, not the state, have the statutory duty to ensure that their children have a suitable education.

“I find it deeply concerning that, after months of work, the Chief Inspector should make such a basic mistake and so utterly confuse the duties of local authorities and parents. Parents who home educate deserve our respect and awe at their dedication and achievements, not the relentless suspicion of an over mighty state.”

Under section 436A of the Education Act 1996, inserted by the Education and Inspections Act 2006, local authorities have a duty to identify children who are not receiving a suitable education in their area, so far as it is practical to do so. As the 2007 Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities make clear, however, ‘local authorities have no statutory duties in relation to monitoring the quality of home education on a routine basis’ and are only required to intervene if it appears that parents are not providing a suitable education.

Mr Stuart went on, “As local authorities do not have the power to demand access to home educated children and cannot insist on parents registering with them, the obvious and correct answer is for local authorities to improve their support for families so that more families make contact with them voluntarily. If they did this and made sure that they employed sympathetic staff who built good reputations, then the number of “unknown” children would be reduced. Such a positive approach would respect the primacy of parents in determining the education of their children and put the onus on local authorities to serve and support, rather than catalogue and monitor, families who home educate.

“Ofsted’s report has little to say about improving local authority support for home educated children and says only that the Department of Education should “consider” funding an entitlement for home-educated children to take public examinations. Ofsted’s report is seriously flawed and damaging to the confidence of home educating parents who had hoped that the relentless disinformation and bullying of the previous regime was over.”

It's covered here in CYPNow.

News from Ofsted

2010-06-17T06:52:00.002+01:00

...in the Independent.

UPDATE: The Ofsted report itself and EO's Response.

New Home Education Magazine

2010-06-07T13:38:00.000+01:00

...available on-line here.

Ken Robinson Mentions Home Education

2010-06-01T06:06:00.001+01:00

...in this more recent talk.

Graham Stuart on the CSF Bill and Home Education

2010-05-26T05:56:00.001+01:00

...from 13 mins into this interview.

So much for funding

2010-05-17T07:50:00.001+01:00

...for 14 to 16 year olds. Far Out Crowd has the story of what really happens.

A Sensible Approach

2010-05-16T13:07:00.001+01:00

...to the current situation is taken by the Underwater Academy.

Where we're at now...

2010-05-16T06:31:00.001+01:00

...from the Forum.

The Coalition Approach to Education

2010-05-15T06:08:00.003+01:00

...will be outlined in the Queen's Speech in May.

More free schools, more familial choice, but all held properly accountable.

(Have just undergone an inspection process in work. Overall it is not helpful, and the final mark which is the only thing most people take note of, does not adequately represent the issues).

The Demise of the DSCF

2010-05-14T11:29:00.006+01:00

To be replaced at least in part, by the Department for Education.

No wonder the incoming government felt they needed a fresh start. From the Guardian:

"Last year, the then schools secretary, Ed Balls, was accused of wasting money on a £3m makeover of the DCSF. This was said to include shipping designer furniture from Italy and installing a grand staircase made from glass and surgical steel. It came at a time when he needed to make £2bn in savings.

(HT: Jem for the button).

Home Education and the Coalition

2010-05-12T11:21:00.004+01:00

...according to Lord Lucas and here's more on the Great Repeal Bill from Douglas Carswell.

Also, the perspective on the current situation from across the pond, from Kelly Green and Gold and The Slog on the departure of Brown and his minions. My sentiments precisely.

Vouchers for Home Education?

2010-05-11T06:10:00.002+01:00

Liberty's lawyers via The Guardian think not.

A New Home Schooled MP

2010-05-09T15:50:00.001+01:00

Nicola Blackwood, Conservative MP for Oxford West and Abingdon.

News from Graham Stuart MP

2010-05-07T18:54:00.002+01:00

From GS's Twitter: He has just spoken to Nick Gibb and confirms that the Tories will not introduce registration and monitoring.

(Where's the heart symbol on blogger, I wonder?)

College Funding for 14 - 16 year olds

2010-04-27T11:30:00.001+01:00

Finally, the DCSF has confirmed that LAs can recoup the money! See here.

Why Home Educators want nothing to do with Ofsted

2010-04-19T15:50:00.001+01:00

Mum of Six explains.

Arch's Privacy Guide for Parents and Children

2010-04-17T14:29:00.001+01:00

...can be found here. The title is ironic, it seems.

Public Servants and Political Pressure

2010-04-15T12:08:00.003+01:00

Why does the Badman report spring to mind, when one reads this, I wonder?

A Wonderful Story about Home Education in the TES

2010-04-12T03:36:00.003+01:00

...here.

The subject tells us that she has been misquoted in a couple of places but the story is nonetheless typical of many home education stories.

CSF Bill's HE Provisions in the News

2010-04-10T19:18:00.002+01:00

...in the Essex Echo.

Voting in the HE Community

2010-04-08T19:10:00.002+01:00

From yesterday's letter from Balls to Michael Gove:

"It is our very clear intention to ensure that all the measures you have rejected are included in a new bill in the first session of the new Parliament."

Putting aside the awful possibility that Balls is still thinking about the leadership, a Labour or Lib/Lab government is still a thing greatly to be feared. It rather looks as if many HEors will be working to make quite sure this doesn't happen.

Schedule 1 of CSF Bill Formally Voted Out

2010-04-08T06:29:00.003+01:00

From Hansard:

"Clauses 19 to 26 disagreed."

"Clause 27 : Power of National Assembly for Wales to make provision by Measure

Debate on whether Clause 27 should stand part of the Bill.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, we on these Benches regret that the Government wish not to proceed with Clause 27, which grants the framework power which would have allowed the National Assembly for Wales to regulate home education in its own way. While we are quite in favour of withdrawing Clause 26, which was unworkable and did not have general support, we believe that home education is a matter which should be devolved to the National Assembly. We on these Benches would rather have left the clause in the Bill, but we shall not oppose its removal tonight.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I do not wish to detain the House any further. The House is aware of the discussions that have taken place as part of wash-up, in which we agreed that we would oppose stand part.

=========================

EO's Press Release here.

Clause 27 disagreed."

For Sure

2010-04-07T17:27:00.006+01:00

It WON'T HAPPEN! (CANT SPEAK FOR JOY).

And here with added spin, from the DCSF.

Clause 26 and Schedule 1 are on the way out.

2010-04-07T13:45:00.013+01:00

Update on the wash-up, (which should be viewable at some stage here.)

Clause 26 of the CSF Bill, along with Schedule 1 appear to be on the way out, if these amendments are to be believed.

"BARONESS MORGAN OF DREFELIN

LORD LUCAS

The above-named Lords give notice of their intention to oppose the Question that Clause 26 stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

BARONESS MORGAN OF DREFELIN

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin gives notice of her intention to oppose the Question that Schedule 1 stand part of the Bill"

The BBC seems to confirm that this is the case.

===============

UPDATE: Letter from Balls to Michael Gove, which was on line but the relevant site appears to be experiencing difficulties:

Letter to Michael Gove on the Children, Schools and Families Bill

07/Apr/2010

"Below is my letter to the shadow schools secretary Michael Gove on the Children, Schools and Families Bill. Many of the important provisions in this Bill have had to be dropped because the Conservatives have refused to allow them to go forward.

Dear Michael,

I want to put on record my deep regret that you have not been prepared to support key measures in the Children, Schools and Families Bill including; guaranteed 1 to 1 tuition for children who fall behind; compulsory home school agreements so all parents support our teachers to keep discipline; statutory PSHE including sex and relationships and financial education; and proper protection for home educated children.

It is our very clear intention to ensure that all the measures you have rejected are included in a new bill in the first session of the new Parliament.

I believe that every child falling behind in English and maths should be guaranteed the small group and one to one support they need to catch up and make progress so that they are secure in the basics and ready to learn in secondary school. Such tailored support should no longer be the preserve of the wealthy and privileged few but a core component of the curriculum. I am deeply disappointed that you do not agree.

Schools have clear statutory powers to discipline pupils for bad behaviour that occurs in school or on the way to and from school. We have given schools the power to search pupils for weapons and other items without pupils consent, and all school staff members have the legal power to use reasonable force both to prevent a crime or injury and to maintain good order and discipline amongst pupils. Our measures to strengthen Home School Agreements would give schools new and stronger powers to ensure all parents support schools to maintain good behaviour including the possibility of a court-imposed parenting order. As behaviour expert Sir Alan Steer reported recently “It is important that schools have the confidence of knowing that they operate within a legal system that supports their endeavours and that both parents and schools know that the use of a parenting order is a possibility”. I believe parents and the profession will be extremely concerned and disappointed at your refusal to back teachers and headteachers.

The reforms to the school curriculum in the Bill would ensure that children and young people are equipped with the knowledge and skills they, and future employers, want and need. The reforms to the Primary curriculum following Sir Jim Rose’s extensive expert review will provide greater flexibility for schools to tailor teaching to the needs and interests of their children while also focusing on the basics of literacy, numeracy and ICT. These proposed changes have been widely welcomed by primary schools across the country, and many Heads and teachers will be disappointed by your refusal to support them.

I am especially disappointed that, despite our conversation yesterday, you could not agree to make PSHE statutory in all state-funded schools. There is now widespread agreement that statutory PSHE is essential to prepare young people for adult life, and our reforms would ensure that by reducing the age of parental opt-out to 15, all children receive at least one year of compulsory sex and relationship education (SRE).

There is a large body of evidence showing that good SRE leads to young people taking greater responsibility and waiting longer to have their first sexual experience and thus reduced teenage pregnancy rates. It is because of this the provisions of the Bill had received such significant support in Parliament and more broadly across the sector, with faith groups and with parents.

As I explained yesterday, your insistence that parents should have a right to withdraw their children until they reach the age of 16 – the age at which they are in many respects considered adults – makes it impossible for us to proceed. Both British and European case law do not support an opt-out up to the age of 16. As I explained when we discussed yesterday, that amendment would have meant that the bill would not have been compliant with the ECHR. Your insistence that the age limit must be increased to 16 would have made the entire bill non-compliant with UK and European law and, therefore, our lawyers advised me that, as Secretary of State, I had no choice but to remove all the PSHE provisions.

This is a very significant set back, which will deny many young people proper and balanced sex and relationships education. I also strongly disagree with your insistence that children and young people attending academies should be excluded.

It is also very disappointing that your refusal to allow us to proceed to make PSHE statutory will set back our plans to ensure that all pupils receive high quality financial education from 2011.

I was very surprised that you have opposed all of our provisions to drive further and sustained school improvement. The provisions taken out of the bill today on school improvement partners; intervention powers and the school report card are the building blocks for a world class 21st century schooling system that meets the needs of every pupil so they can achieve their full potential. They would also provide parents with the information that they tell us they need to make informed decisions with their children about the future and the removal of these provisions prevents us from delivering the fairer system of accountability we have promised to schools.

Improving teaching underpins the best possible education for all pupils, and the proposed licence to practise would have firmly established the professional standing of the workforce and provided teachers with the status they deserve alongside a contractual entitlement to CPD. I am sorry you do not agree.

Finally, you and your colleagues have been clear about your opposition to the proposed registration scheme for home educators. I do believe this is profoundly misguided and will put children at risk in the future. We have always been clear that the vast majority of home educators do a good job and that they have nothing to fear from the proposals we brought forward. However, without our reforms the small minority of children at risk will remain so. By opposing these provisions you have removed a potentially valuable tool for local authorities in their work to safeguard all children.

I understand that in some instances there are issues of principle that divide us. And I also recognise that, following the decision by the shadow Chancellor not to protect the schools budget this year, you have to find a very hefty and immediate cut to the DCSF budget in 2010-11, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates at £1.7bn. But I do believe the interests of children would have been better served had you agreed to these provisions reaching the statute book. Your refusal means the loss of a number of key provisions that would have made a significant difference to the lives of children and their families.

It is a great pity that you have put at risk improvements in our schools, support for pupils and the well-being of our young people. I will be campaigning to ensure that this Government is returned and that these measures do make it on the statute book in the first session of the new Parliament.

Yours sincerely,

ED BALLS MP

The CSF Bill at the Wash Up Tomorrow

2010-04-06T22:06:00.004+01:00

As far as we understand it, this scheduling is in fact the Wash Up for the CSF Bill.

More details, courtesy of EO:

It will be a very busy day in the Lords with the CSF Bill last on the agenda.

It doesn't seem as though the Lords will be on TV live and there may only be edited highlights available afterwards, here and here.

However, you can read “Today in the Lords” from 3 hours after the event with the Full Report appearing in Hansard at 8am the following morning.

Tomorrow, Thursday 8th April will be “ping-pong” where the Commons considers any amendments from the Lords.

Parliament will then be prorogued and any further business will be decided between the Front Bench Opposition and the Government.

We don't know what will happen but should know something by the end of the week at the latest.

Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons and House of Lords have consistently opposed the CSF Bill and the home education measures in particular and we are told that the Conservative Shadow Spokesperson for Children Schools and Families reiterated their commitment yesterday to ensuring that the home education proposals would not pass into law.

Writing Reports for Mr Balls

2010-04-05T11:27:00.002+01:00

It is not just home educators who question the veracity of Graham Badman's reports, it seems.

Forget the Mendacity, feel the Incompetence

2010-04-05T06:20:00.002+01:00

...from the Slog:

"Ed Balls wants to be Chancellor, but says that the Tories must now raise VAT. This is because Balls can't add up, and doesn't read anything or listen to anyone. He simply shouts and tweets."

Yep. Home educators know this too.

News of the Scrapping of the HE proposals in CSF bill

2010-04-02T18:51:00.001+01:00

...in the TES.

EO will be going to the Briefing Event on HE

2010-04-02T10:49:00.001+01:00

...details here.

Will the CSF Bill Kill Children?

2010-03-28T10:00:00.011+01:00

Thanks are due to the person who pointed out to me that my contention that children will be damaged by Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill has been contested by a supporter of the Bill. I don't want to get bogged down in unproductive debate with this particular individual who has repeatedly demonstrated an incapacity to argue with a due respect for reality, the rules of logic or with much integrity, but I am prepared to address at least one of his points.

My basic argument is this: if LAs and/or courts are given any greater powers to override parental/familial autonomy with regard to determining the place of education, children who are not suited to school-based education will be forced into schools and will suffer, and some will die as a result.

This for those of us who have known and acknowledged the terrible pain of many schooled children, isn't an unreasonable contention. For everyone else who trivialises the impact of the damage caused by schools, I am sorry but I just can't be bothered to argue this point just now, mostly because I think it likely that the trivialisation of school trauma is such a norm and a heftily entrenched meme amongst school advocates and others, that anything other than the most protracted explanations/investigations/epiphanic moments is unlikely to shift this.

What remains at issue however, is whether the CSF bill will actually override parental autonomy with regard to the determining of the place of education. It is perfectly understandable that there might have been some disagreement over whether the new system for School Attendance Orders (which would result from the overlaying of the CSF Bill) would result in further removal of parental/familial autonomy to decide the place of education, as there is considerable ambiguity about how the re-writing of s437 will play out.

From the relevant sections of the Bill:

"(B1) The authority shall serve a notice in writing on the child’s parent requiring the parent to satisfy them within the period specified in the notice that the child is either—

(a) receiving suitable education provided wholly or partly by regular attendance at school, or otherwise than at school under section 19,

(b) registered on their home education register, or

(c) in the area of another authority and registered on that authority’s home education register.

Don't be fooled by the bit about section 19 in B1(a) since this only applies to children whose education is funded by local authorities out of school.

B1(b) and (c) seem to imply that a child must already be on their own or another LA's home education register when the LA make a written request to the parent giving them 'x' days notice to demonstrate that this is the case.

Should the parent fail to demonstrate either a, b or c, an SAO will be issued.

The only possible get-out clause: that a family might be able to scramble an acceptance onto the LA's home education register within the time frame that an LA sets out in the notice, but it is by no means clear that this would be possible and given the ambiguity and the intent behind the law, which is surely to frighten home educators into registering, LAs are almost certain to opt for the first interpretation, ie: if you aren't already on a register...boomf, an SAO is coming your way soon.

From the DCSF's Policy Statement on Schedule 1, (para 18), it seems unlikely that a family will be able to do such scrambling, since it appears that new HEors will only have 20 days to apply to register, whilst HEors who have been in the business a long time will only have three months in which to apply.

It therefore seems highly unlikely that there will be a chance for home educating families to argue that whilst they aren't registered, they are still actually providing a suitable education outside of school.

If the notice runs out before the family can demonstrate that they are on the home education register and the LA think it expedient that the child attend school, the authority shall serve a school attendance order. In considering whether it is expedient that a child should attend school:

"(3B)...an authority shall disregard any education being provided to the child as a home-educated child."

Hmm...so even less chance that a family can get out of jail (I mean school) free then?

So, given that the SAO has been issued, what should a family with a child who would fail in school then do? Most will not dare to face court, (given that the penalty for being found guilty is likely to be a hefty fine, "not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale" - whatever that means) and will therefore probably just accede to authority, and try to cope with all the suffering that this will entail for their child.

On the other hand, if such a family do dig in their heels, what then? At this point, we must look to the re-write of s443.

443 Offence: failure to comply with school attendance order

(A1) A parent on whom a school attendance order is served in respect of a child by a local authority in England, and who fails to comply with the requirements of the order, is guilty of an offence unless —

(a) the parent proves that he is causing the child to receive suitable education, otherwise than at school, under section 19

(b) the child is registered on the authority’s home education register, or

(c) the parent proves that the child is in the area of another authority, and the child is registered on that authority’s home education register.

This seems to make it clear that the courts in England at least are not allowed to consider the nature of suitability of education (again do not be fooled by A1a as this only applies to Section 19 children). Unless the parent is still able to set about getting the child on the register, even at this late stage, my original contention that a parent will have no defence regarding suitability of educational provision in court does indeed appear to stand.

In which case, supporters of the CSF Bill - children will suffer and some will indeed die because of it.

UPDATE:

For other reasons why the CSF Bill will kill children, see Firebird's comment below.

Home Education

2010-03-24T11:14:00.000Z

...in the Times.

It isn't just home educators

2010-03-23T16:36:00.002Z

...who are feeling the pain of the police state. Witness this post from The Conservative Blog.

The CSF Bill on Woman's Hour

2010-03-21T23:46:00.001Z

,..tomorrow, Monday. Details here.

Scary Stuff

2010-03-21T16:07:00.002Z

A home educating family on the run from social services.

Suitable and Efficient

2010-03-19T17:52:00.001Z

A timely blog post on the subject here.

Why forcing children back into school can be very, very dangerous

2010-03-18T17:28:00.003Z

Update on yesterday's mail:

I forgot to mention that some HE children are removed from school because the school hadn't managed their health problems well. In our group alone, there are children whose asthma, peanut allergies and diabetes which were either not well managed or would have been very diffcult to manage in school.

When you read terrible stories such as this one, you can understand why parents of such children could be terrified at the prospect of an insensitive inspector forcing children back into school.

And then of course there are all these other reasons.

To all supporters of Schedule 1

2010-03-17T14:53:00.003Z

...of the CSF bill, Deech, Soley, Badman, Ed Balls, Simon Webb, whoever you may be. Be very aware that by forcing children, either because of some administrative error on the part of parents, or because an ignorant LA officer says so and without any chance to offer a defence in court, back into school, you will almost certainly have blood on your hands.

I personally know of three children who were withdrawn from school because they threatened to commit suicide. I know of two more who were self-harming. An older sibling of another HE child who had been bullied appallingly at school did commit suicide before his parents realised that HE was an option. Death, self-harming, anorexia and other long-term negative mental health sequelae...these will be your legacy.

From my own personal experience of the damage that school can inflict: three out of the 20 or so of us in my house in my year suffered from anorexia, one of them very severely. They were all fine before they went to that school. There were many other smiling depressives, and pupils who ended up with personality disorders of one sort or another, usually narcissism. At least one of the anorexics has nearly died of the disorder many times during her life so far. She is also sterile. Many of the others who suffered less severly said that their symptoms resolved the moment they walked out of the place. Am thinking this is unlikely to be a coincidence.

(Please note, I loved my junior school...I am objective about how people react to situations - unlike some others, it seems.)

School and the schooling model can be EXTREMELY DAMAGING. Get that into your tiny minds, all ye who have never suffered as a result of it. Turn on that part of your brains which appears to have got stuck in the "school is the answer" meme, turn on the ability to imagine how it might be for others who do not thrive in it and turn on the ability to imagine a better way forward for such people.

Well DUH!

2010-03-17T12:59:00.004Z

Oh dear, a theme is emerging. I just can't be bothered to find a more descriptive title for recent blog posts, what with the welter of rubbish that heads our way.

Apparently, five out of 37 home educated children in the Merton area are not receiving a satisfactory education.

Hmm. And what criteria are they using precisely? Well, first off, we hear, courtesy of a council spokeswoman, that home education is checked by a "qualified school inspector".

Merton councillors, you really do need your heads seeing to. You wouldn't ask an unqualified lay person to provide testimony on the efficacy of a brain surgeon. Why on earth should home educators be inspected by someone who is not only not trained in the subject, but is trained in another entirely different subject but who appears to think the second is the same as the first?

Really, "duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhh" is the only sensible reaction at this point, though I could throw in that I really, really don't want anyone that thick coming anywhere near my family.

Merton confirm their error by talking about the need for a "curriculum". Oh just bog off. Sorry, have lost all patience.

Ok, in calmer mood, here it is - our curriculum that is: the children in our family follow their interests. We, the parents, help them pursue these. We offer our best theories which the children are free to critique and reject if they see fit. We seek common preferences and the children learn without coercion. Unsurprisingly, for those who have seen this process all the way through, this works to create responsible adults.

There, that's our "curriculum". Don't suppose that is good enough for Merton though.

Meanwhile from Birmingham

2010-03-17T11:49:00.003Z

"Birmingham City Council still in deep denial over Khyra Ishaq tragedy".

"Mrs King's (the judge's) judgment in Family Court proceedings totally demolishes the council's claim that nothing more could have been done to save Khyra because her mother had withdrawn her from school to educate her at home.

This was the line relied upon by Birmingham children's director Tony Howell and cabinet member Les Lawrence, who told a media briefing that legislation giving parents the right to withdraw children from school gave local authorities no powers to enter houses to inspect the arrangements for schooling at home.

In fact, as Mrs Justice King points out, the council had sufficient powers under the Children Act to enter the house where Khyra was being held."

UPDATE

News in the Telegraph of the crippled social services department in Birmingham. We have been saying it all along. Social services are woefully underfunded and not just in Birmingham and there would be no point wasting money on a universal inspection service of all HEors when social services can't even manage families known to be at risk.

DCSF Announce Research into HE

2010-03-17T06:14:00.002Z

...to start in April 2010.

This is what Civitas has to say about government priorities.